From the L.A. Times:
Analysis: Romney-Obama race dividing U.S. along fault lines
By Paul West
Increasingly, the 2012 presidential election appears to be dividing along a pair of fault-lines.
The first is demographic: old versus new America.
President Obama’s reelection depends increasingly on a coalition of minorities and younger voters, the same groups that helped put him in office. Their overall numbers are increasing, but the president’s ability to turn them out this year at anywhere close to 2008 levels remains in doubt (at least among Latinos and younger whites; the black vote is virtually certain to be there again for Obama). Their potential explains why Democrats have sought to portray the election as the future against the past.
Mitt Romney, meanwhile, is likely to become president only if he can improve on John McCain’s performance among whites, who represent a declining share of the U.S. population. The GOP candidate’s recent campaign swings have been through areas where whites make up a disproportionate share of the population — including portions of the old Midwest Rust belt and southwest Virginia. A potential key to mobilizing conservative whites: voter drives by Christian organizations to sign up millions of unregistered evangelicals; one of Romney’s biggest advantages over Obama, according to the Gallup Poll, comes from religious whites, who favor the Republican by better than 2-to-1.
The huge advantage that Obama possesses is that in The Narrative, his pandering (e.g., declaring he won't enforce immigration laws to get more Hispanic votes) is admirable because he's on the side of the right kind of people (e.g., gays, Latinos, single moms, etc.). In contrast, what Romney has to do is shameful because they are the wrong kind of people.
On the other hand, twine and duct tape coalitions like Obama's are inherently unstable. But doing anything to exploit that would be "divisive," and we can't have that.
Posts
52 comments:
This is going to be the first "post-modern" American election... Enjoy!
I think Romney will repeat McCain's campaign and lose the election in the same fashion. There are several themes Romney could invoke to gain against Obama but up to now he has avoided them all, so I don't think he really wants to win-- not at the cost of betraying the Establishment.
The Republican slave master class has no one to blame but themselves for the predicament they are in.
Some day those cheap vegetables will become higher tax rates.
Single mothers are going to spend more money on health insurance.
Being portrayed as racist by the MSM might lose you enough moderates to cost you the election, so I wonder if that's why the GOP is scared.
Practically: how about a Willie Horton-ish strategy, focusing on the negative effects of NAMs, such as crime?
Romney should show up at lots of college campuses. That age group is saddled with our debt.
I don't know how we can get white youth to defend, or to even recognize their own interests. Eliminate campus security? Enforce disparate impact laws regarding admissions? They are too used to tasting only the sweetness in life, they need some Marmite.
Romney can't get the black vote, can't improve on it, I'm sure.
He might be able to do better with Hispanics than predicted, but can't count on it.
He can indeed do better with the youth vote and he can indeed do better with single moms. Basic math lessons are needed.
Well, ROmeny could pick up New Hempshire and Iowa if he talk about there good stats compared to California or Texas but he will not do that. Both New Hempshire which is more fiscally conservative than most states on the taxes but has a low minority population and low poverty and high income will not be used. iowa swing state some taxes high and some low but a small minority population will not be use. ROmey used the usual Repub speech that only helps mainly in the south among whites.
Tax eaters vs. tax payers. I was reading how tax rates on dividends are going up due to Obamacare.
Practically: how about a Willie Horton-ish strategy, focusing on the negative effects of NAMs, such as crime?
You could get a pretty good Willie Horton ad by interspersing pictures of Obama and Holder with pictures of Brian Terry.
I actually think Romney is going to win by increasing the Republicans' share of the white vote. Obama's racial and class politics is going to blow up in his face.
But doing anything to exploit that would be "divisive," and we can't have that.
After all, it's election season.
The other possibility is that somehow, Obama/Holder/Ayers will self-destruct.
Anon.
Will we get an "October surprise" this time around? Any riots in the offing? How often will the word "racism" be used? I get the feeling this election will be a huge mud-wrestling event.
Romney can't get the black vote, can't improve on it, I'm sure.
If you're a Republican, why even bother bringing up the damned black vote? Even if you could improve it, who cares, it's immaterial. Republicans must Go White or Go Home.
"He can indeed do better with the youth vote and he can indeed do better with single moms. Basic math lessons are needed."
Who cares about single moms. Romney should focus more on indebted college students and young people. Single moms are a huge reason for this debt, because they keep enrolling in online or crap "schools" and receiving pell grants/loans for such nonsense.
"Enforce disparate impact laws regarding admissions?" What do you mean exactly? undergrad, grad, STEM? Please explain.
Anon 5:08 pm
Regarding the black vote - I have a lot of lower income black clients. Remember the "is Obama black enough" stories four years ago? They don't feel they owe him anything. He never paid his dues as other leaders did. Most are not happy with Obama. It's all economic. They would vote for George Wallace and Lester Maddox if it meant jobs, lower grocery bills, cheaper gas.
PS: There's no love lost with hispanics either. Most know someone who lost their job to a Mexican.
Regarding the black vote - I have a lot of lower income black clients. Remember the "is Obama black enough" stories four years ago? They don't feel they owe him anything. He never paid his dues as other leaders did. Most are not happy with Obama. It's all economic. They would vote for George Wallace and Lester Maddox if it meant jobs, lower grocery bills, cheaper gas.
PS: There's no love lost with hispanics either. Most know someone who lost their job to a Mexican.
6/30/12 7:30 PM
Is that you Karl Rove? Yeah, the food stamps don't stretch as far as they used to, I'll vote for Whitey.
Regarding the black vote, is there any population of 30 plus million people in the world, living in a free democratic state, who are as monolithic as American blacks? Even if obama weren't running, the democrat would still get 90 percent of the vote. The only time I have seen a candidate get that high a percentage, with that great a population, is when Saddam or some other guy in a single-party state ran for office.
The other possibility is that somehow, Obama/Holder/Ayers will self-destruct.
Anon.
Regarding the black vote - I have a lot of lower income black clients. Remember the "is Obama black enough" stories four years ago? They don't feel they owe him anything. He never paid his dues as other leaders did. Most are not happy with Obama. It's all economic
Ho boy, the black vote's up for grabs! Go for it GOP: elections turn on this stuff!
LOL
There's nothing unstable about the liberal coalition, they're united by a racist hatred of and a desire to exploit white people. That is more than enough to strongly bind them together, and will remain so for quite some time. It's the conservative and Republican coalition that's unstable, precisely because its leadership refuses to acknowledge the above. Once you agree with your opponents that the people who make up the overwhelming majority of your constituents deserve to be exterminated it's pretty hard to find issues important enough to whip up any enthusiasm among them, which is why the Republicans have had to go farther afield to places like Iraq and Iran to find an issue. But that can't last.
Look at the embarrassing spectacle of establishment conservatives trying to put a positive spin on the recent Obamacare court ruling (while remaining comparatively silent on the Arizona ruling - see above). Is there anything that could better expose them as out-and-out confidence swindlers? I just don't see how anyone can take them seriously.
"On the other hand, twine and duct tape coalitions like Obama's are inherently unstable."
Sounds more like a rebar and concrete coalition. Religious whites? There are fewer now than than there was four years ago - throw in the Mormon thing and things look pretty bleak.
This "Hispanic vote issue" is such a load of bull. We have electoral college. Latinos' proportion of total vote is only high in states that are 100% set in their outcome. Ergo, pandering to Latinos is a waste of time and resources.
throw in the Mormon thing and things look pretty bleak
That's the most interesting (entertainment-wise) issue of upcoming Obama campaign - will they use "Mormon thing" to scare religious voters?
Religious whites? There are fewer now than than there was four years ago - throw in the Mormon thing and things look pretty bleak.
I think if it is down to a choice between a white Mormon and a black with Muslim sympathies, then I think most white religious voters will opt for Romney.
"I think if it is down to a choice between a white Mormon and a black with Muslim sympathies, then I think most white religious voters will opt for Romney."
He was just as Muslim 4 years ago.
When do we see the interracial porn parodies about Obama's mother? They made a series of Nailin' Palin parodies, shouldn't Stanley get equal time - you can throw in some Black Orpheus type scenes.
Expect some Romney based multiple spouse porn before the election.
Why do you think the Obama coalition is less stable than the romney billionaire funded and controlled GOP relying on poor whites?
I think both are actually fairly stable and subject only to gradual shifts over decades.
The Democrats are organized similar to how the 13th century Mongols were. They are a coalition of tribes that band together to seek plunder and tribute. By the time they reached Poland or China, the vast majority of their army was non-Mongols who joined because they either had found better pickings or it was the only way to avoid becoming road kill themselves. That type of coalition is inherently unstable. It was mob rule so once a Mongol leader died it could take a generation or two for another single leader to emerge that everybody could trust. Collecting booty was always a problem because there were so many deals that needed to be cut to keep everybody on board. The gathering hoards would become so large that by the time they reached their intended destination they often had a hard time laying siege because they would quickly out strip the local resources including fodder for their horses. This is why they generally stuck to the steppes and angled for tribute. The Democrats have a similar problem in that each new group they add has to be given a diminishing cut of the action and once they enemies’ resources are depleted they will all drift back to whence they came from.
The Democrats are organized similar to how the 13th century Mongols were. They are a coalition of tribes that band together to seek plunder and tribute... The Democrats have a similar problem in that each new group they add has to be given a diminishing cut of the action and once they enemies’ resources are depleted they will all drift back to whence they came from.
But what would be the Mongol analogy of our contemporary Scots-Irish [in television, newspapers, magazines, the universities, the law practices, and the financial sector] who are coordinating it all?
I agree that Obama's coalition is strong (not twine and duct tape), united by the hatred of a common enemy.
One part of the coalition that can be peeled off by Republicans is white women. They don't have as much hatred for whites for obvious reasons.
The other part that can be peeled off by smart Republicans is the mercenaries. Government workers will support Democrats for mercenary reasons. Anywhere the GOP can reduce their numbers or privatize the services they provide, it's a win for the GOP.
The GOP, of course, is very averse to engaging in racial politics, and any cuts in government spending are always attacked as mean and cruel by the media, so they avoid those as well.
Prof. Woland said of Democrats, "each new group they add has to be given a diminishing cut of the action."
Not if unwanted groups are thrown out so as to keep the membership of the coalition closer to 50% plus one vote.
The Dems threw out the Southern whites in the 60's, and they are deliberately throwing out the Northern white Catholics today.
In a redistributionist party, it's all about getting the plunder and dividing it up. There are no other real issues.
"I think Romney will repeat McCain's campaign and lose the election in the same fashion. There are several themes Romney could invoke to gain against Obama but up to now he has avoided them all, so I don't think he really wants to win-- not at the cost of betraying the Establishment"
If Romney wins it will be in spite of himself.
OklahomaRichard
Blacks used to vote only party-of-Lincoln Republican, all the way to Herbert Hoover. Then FDR's New Deal converted many blacks to Democrat, but as recently as the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon race, Nixon received 32% of that vote, a percentage today unimaginable for a Republican presidential candidate.
Yet by 1964 the switch was complete. Johnson received over 90% of the black vote against Goldwater as blacks were in overwhelming support of Johnson's Great Society programs, and Goldwater was perceived as at the least providing comfort to racists.
Blacks in actuality have been rock-solid consistent. They have always voted whichever party was the liberal party, and the party of government. The federal government freed them from slavery, the federal government gave them what little protection they received during the Jim Crow years, and the federal government implemented the new deal and the great society.
"Regarding the black vote, is there any population of 30 plus million people in the world, living in a free democratic state, who are as monolithic as American blacks? Even if obama weren't running, the democrat would still get 90 percent of the vote. The only time I have seen a candidate get that high a percentage, with that great a population, is when Saddam or some other guy in a single-party state ran for office." - Southern whites, who live right next to them, vote in just a skewed a manner in the other direction, because if they don't their states would turn to shit in short order, and they've got no where to run.
"You could get a pretty good Willie Horton ad by interspersing pictures of Obama and Holder with pictures of Brian Terry."
Yet another example of black on white crime. Not sure the Willie Horton route would be effective against charges of racism.
The Democrats have a similar problem in that each new group they add has to be given a diminishing cut of the action and once they enemies’ resources are depleted they will all drift back to whence they came from.
Drift back to what? Where? Please explain.
Silver & Anon at 8:11pm:
I don't think a block of voters is up for grabs. Didn't mean to imply that.
How voters feel about a candidate determines not only who gets their vote, but also if they vote at all.
We can hope for lower turnout.
This time around it will be harder for Obama than in 2008. He isn't the cool unknown quantity that he was four years ago particularly among young voters. Their ardor has probably been significantly dissipated by three and a half years of a bad job market and bleak career prospects. A lot of the people on the right don't also realize how big a deal being seen as Anti-Bush was in 2008. A lot of leftists were practically apoplectic at him for 8 years and some of that rubbed off on young people who came of age during the late 2000's, they would have given their vote to any Democratic candidate who would have secured the nomination. But in addition, Obama was the cool black guy who went to Harvard Law School, which was followed by Old Man McCain picking Palin which seemed to be the worst kind of pandering for female voters since well Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, and then the economy imploded 6-7 weeks before the election. These circumstances added up to a perfect storm for the Democrats or against the Republicans.
Assuming Romney doesn't butcher the VP nomination, none of these advantages that Democrats had in 08 will likely be in play again. That's why all these people comparing this the last election seem off-base to me. Romney is much younger and better looking than McCain, there is no anti-Bush sentiment for the Democrats to ride, the economy is now their problem, and if Romney chooses his VP well, there will not be a Sarah Palin sticking foot into mouth on an almost daily basis. In the last election the GOP was the party with grandpa and the ditzy weather girl trying to defend a very unpopular president and his unpopular war that all young people where absolutely sure that Obama would end Real Soon Now. Well none of that has happened, the stimulus didn't stimulate the economy, and the US military is still in Afghanistan in greater numbers than ever and the Obama White House is just as intent as Bush was of projecting military power all over the world. Obama can't reasonably run as the "end the war candidate" nor as "the rescuer of the economy", both of which he did in 2008 and were big selling points with both younger voters and their rate of turnout, which was unusally high. So the idea that both young voters will swing as hard to Obama and turn out in huge numbers seems very unlikely to me. That leaves black people who will vote 95 percent or more for Obama, but that is only marginally higher than any Democrat will get in any Presidential race anyway. The older voters who leaned to Obama in 2008 because of the economy and Palin will now switch back to the GOP, that combined with far fewer and less skewed to the Democrats younger voters should help Romney enourmously. Obama also had an advantage that no Democrat in recent memory has had, he out-raised and out-spent McCain by better than a 2-1 margin. That advantage is also gone, Romney will easily match if not exceed Obama's war chest. I know the MSM has tried to make this a racial issue, but they tried and failed to that in 1993 in NYC, with Dinkins running for re-election. Well guess what, Dinkins lost, badly to Gulianni and the neither the Democrats nor any black Democratic mayors have been elected since in a city with a 4-1 Democratic registration advantage. If the MSM couldn't fix that election where everything was in their favor, how can they do it in 2012 with a far less left leaning electorate nationwide. This election is Romney's to lose, it's up to him not to screw it up.
Illegal alien amnesty is not popular among most americans. Gay marriage is not either (polls can be disregarded; we know what happens election day). Obamacare certainly isn't. Romney should use these issues to get 80% of white working class voters. But he refuses to be aggressive and fight, like he did in the primaries.
If he doesn't he'll lose. If he does he's got a shot.
The Republican Party is a duct tape operation as well.
I think I've read other statements that back up my conjecture, but my theory is that the Republican Party, the modern one, is something that is held together by the very existence of black people.
Lost in the noise of Obama is the fact that one of the two major political parties has guys like Mike Huckabee and Eric Cantor in it. Not to mention Ron and Rand Paul. Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers (yeah I know, but they are tres important with the way things work now), and just about any of the Southern Republican politicians.
Other than opposition to the Democratic Party, I don't know what holds the Republicans together. It's kind of amazing it's lasted as long as it has. There aren't any Rockefeller Republicans left, nor anything I would call a Goldwater or even Nixon Republican honestly.
To me the big story in politics and American demographics is Latinos, which my take is means "Mexicans."
Sometime around 2020 or a little later, Texas flips Democratic. And when it does, that will be the last of this incarnation of the Republican Party. Things will happen overnight (or at least one election cycle or so) because Texas Democrats have sat at the feet of the Masters when it comes to gerrymandering.
If you look at some of the other southern states, the margin for Republicans in elections isn't as ridiculous as you would expect for an area that is so dominated by elected Republicans.
As blacks continue to move to the South, I expect the Republican dominance to gradually recede in a number of them (South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana for example). Not as dramatic as I think Texas will be, but certainly something I think a lot of us will see in our lifetimes.
I expect the Republicans to mutate and survive, but I can't even begin to prognosticate what kinds of issues or constituency this new party will have.
I think 2016 is the last Presidential election this version of the Republican Party can win. I really don't expect them to win this year, but the next 4 months will tell.
The Democratic Party is a duct tape operation as well, but I don't think their "internal contradictions" are as glaring as the Republican party.
The rise of Latinos is definitely something that will become a stress point with them though, for many reasons. If major change comes to the Democratic Party in the next few decades it will be because of this I think.
My take is the big losers in the future are going to be blacks, and southern and flyover whites. Most Latinos won't do any better than these groups, but it will be status quo or an improvement for them.
My take is that math says the welfare state model of government is near collapse all across the West.
Welfare collapse means welfare disfavor for a generation or more. That will change everything including the demographic shift models that have so many Marxists giddy today.
"Sometime around 2020 or a little later, Texas flips Democratic. And when it does, that will be the last of this incarnation of the Republican Party. Things will happen overnight (or at least one election cycle or so) because Texas Democrats have sat at the feet of the Masters when it comes to gerrymandering." Other way around, the republicans could have totally eliminated democrat congressional seats if they'd been inclined to, or if they'd done to democrat voters what had been done to republican voters.
That said, the economy is done, and the hispanic demographic tidal wave is done with it. Plus mexico doesn't have that many people left to send north as it is. Finally there is the water timebomb that will blow up in everyones faces around that time.
"As blacks continue to move to the South, I expect the Republican dominance to gradually recede in a number of them (South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana for example). Not as dramatic as I think Texas will be, but certainly something I think a lot of us will see in our lifetimes."
Only if they can actually effect the outcome of the states, it could play the other way, with the near solid white voting blocks in those states getting more electoral seats. If the democrats can keep the money flowing perhaps, otherwise they are shooting themselves in the foot by gentrifying blacks out of the north.
"This is going to be the first "post-modern" American election... Enjoy!"
"Post-mortem."
"Southern whites, who live right next to them, vote in just a skewed a manner in the other direction,,,"
No they don't. Blacks vote 90+ percent Democrat in virtually every American jurisdiction, but even the most heavily Republican white constituencies (like South Carolina or Mississippi) are rarely more than 70% Republican. That's why there are still Democratic southern governors and white Democratic Congressmen.
I'm waiting for someone to explain how the Democrats lose if the "duct tape" unravels. Steve has brought this duct tape analogy before, with several posters seconding his idea of the coalition breaking up as the aff action/welfare pie gets cut into increasingly smaller pieces (along with supposed fault lines on gay marriage and the like). What is actually going to happen? are some of these coalition members going to go Republican? Quit voting? Form ethnically based parties? Are SWPL's going to flip? Are they really going to leave the Dems? This idea of an unraveling coalition doesn't count for much unless the some of the players truly go somewhere else. Commenter Sunbeam's take seems more plausible to me.
As someone else pointed out, the gears are already starting to grind in the machinery of welfare. If there's no financial incentive to have four or five kids, people generally will not.
Things are not going to continue 'business as usual', which throws all the models that the Beltway caste have come up with out the window.
This thread is getting long in the tooth as far as age goes, but I have a few things I'd like to say still.
The idea of ethnically based parties isn't ludicrous in my opinion. It seems like the US has had only two major political parties for most of it's existence, but that isn't written in flaming letters across the sky. As they say "Past performance is no guarantee of future results."
Right now for a sizable fraction of its voters the Republican Party is an ethnic party. Not true for all Republicans, but true for for a lot.
Current population trends with Latinos already in the US point to them growing as a voting bloc. If they register and vote that is. Mexico's economy is dicey, as it has been for a long time. Pemex will continue its decline, in short I can easily imagine economics or political distress leading to another wave of emigration, though probably not as large.
Long term I'm thinking the Midwest will be the "homeland" of the Republican Party. I can also imagine elites (I don't have a better word for them) and white women splintering off from the Democrats. It's certainly possible they could join some future Republican Party, but who knows?
What gets me the most is blacks. There is no possible way they can form a viable ethnic political party that can get much done nationally. Where do they fit in politically? It's a sizable voting bloc, but I dunno.
And the first southern state with a majority black population (this could happen, I think a lot of the Northern cities are doing their own ethnic cleansing in a quiet way) is going to be a very unhappy place.
I think Romney will repeat McCain's campaign and lose the election in the same fashion. There are several themes Romney could invoke to gain against Obama but up to now he has avoided them all, so I don't think he really wants to win-- not at the cost of betraying the Establishment.
I disagree.
Romney has been running for president for 6 years now, and has invested much ego and personal wealth into the quest. If he loses in November, no way he's getting a 3rd shot at the prize. Hence, his willingness to swing far to the right of everyone else on immigration in the primaries.
Unlike McCain (or Perry or Paul or Gingrich or Santorum) he has no political career to fall back on. No Senate seat, no consulting biz, no media pundit gig. He doesn't need more money. Therefore, while Romney is certainly a creature of The Establishment, The Establishment has nothing to offer him that could compensate for losing to Obama.
My suspicion is that Romney's campaign is still confident in winning, so he's playing the reassuring moderate. But if Team Romney feels things slipping away after Labor Day, Romney will not be afraid to rile up the disaffected "traditional American" bloc if that's what it takes.
At least that's what I hope.
"The first is demographic: old versus new America."
If whites are the old America, so that implies non-whites are the vibrant, energized, new and improved America.
"Regarding the black vote, is there any population of 30 plus million people in the world, living in a free democratic state, who are as monolithic as American blacks? Even if obama weren't running, the democrat would still get 90 percent of the vote. The only time I have seen a candidate get that high a percentage, with that great a population, is when Saddam or some other guy in a single-party state ran for office."
Southern whites, who live right next to them, vote in just a skewed a manner in the other direction, because if they don't their states would turn to shit in short order, and they've got no where to run.
Yeah, I guess that would be the only way for there to be Republicans as Governor or Senators from Texas, Mississippi, or Georgia. That won't last forever, though, unless immigration is cut off and minorities' birth rates fall below whites'.
Post a Comment